let me finish tonight with this. i think the republican party got the message. not all republicans, but a decent number of them. they ran a candidate who didn't believe in what he was saying. they have elements in the party they're doing it in, people who don't want to agree with the middle of this country. people who would rather be right, even far right than have a hand in picking a president. someone in that party has to come along and offer themselves as a true center right candidate, someone who is solid on fiscal matters, strong on defense, but plays down their social issues. someone with charisma who can win the support of people on the other side of the 50 yard line. i'm talking about a ronald reagan for the 21st century. i know the party is unlikely to

find such a candidate, male or female. but unless they do, they're stuck in second place nationally. they can't beat hillary clinton. that's for sure, not with the rogue elements they've got joining them in their huddle. not where the candidate only reads the words like romney did, well enough to get the nomination, but not well enough, did you notice, to actually be picked as a president. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being was. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. >> good evening americans, and welcome to the ed show from new york. some republicans in demographic denial are fumbling on immigration reform. i don't trust them. let's get to work. >> this will be the year. >> the immigration overhaul is on. republicans look like they're cooperating. but can democrats trust them? >> in espanol, vamanos. >> senator bob menendez of new jersey is here with the details. plus, labor reaction with leo gerard of the steel workers. in center left tonight, paul ryan broadsides the president

shirks thinking more of a conquest than political compromise. >> former congressman barney frank on the new republican messaging on failed conservative ideas. plus, reverend jesse jackson on the latest republican effort to disenfranchise minority voters. and call the whambulance. the obama-clinton interview has righties spewing conservative conspiracy theory nonsense. >> i'd like to know did she pass out and hit her head? was she pushed? >> i'll get to the bottom of all the whining with jonathan alter. >> there was no follow-up. >> good to have you with us folks. thanks for watching. republicans are waking up to the realities of a center left country. they need to partner with the democrats on immigration reform, or basically be left in the dust. this is just one of many issues. senator chuck schumer new york led seven of his senate colleagues in announcing a bipartisan plan for immigration reform today. they want the proposal to be

pushed through the senate this spring. >> for the first time ever, there is more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in supporting it. >> the plan is a common sense approach to give 11 million undocumented workers in this country a chance to become citizens without fearing deportation. >> if you got up this morning and had fruits for breakfast, it was probably picked by the bent back of an immigrant worker. if you slept in a hotel or motel of the nation, you probably had your room done by an immigrant worker. >> the problem is in the past the republicans have screamed amnesty whenever immigration reform comes up. this process is not automatic amnesty. the senators are calling it a tough but fair path to citizenship. an undocumented worker must complete a background check and be clear of any felony charges. they must pay any fines and any back taxes. there is a requirement to learn english and american civics over the course of the next several years. after passing these benchmarks,

an undocumented immigrant will be granted legal working status. they will be issued green cards on the condition of the border being made secure. i'm a little confused on exactly how that works. we'll get to it in a moment. reform advocates hope the involvement of republican senator marco rubio will bring nervous conservatives along. in the house, speaker john boehner says he remains optimistic in legislation moving forward. republican congressman mario diaz-balart says he has been working with democrats in his chamber. >> we've seen that the speaker has said he wants to get it done. we've seen what the minority leader says that they want to get it done. here is the good news. a group of us have been ready for years. we've worked out most of the complicated details. you know the devil is in the detail. well, we've dealt with that devil. now it's an issue of just filing legislation and hopefully get it passed. >> yes, republicans everywhere are talking sensibly about the importance of getting 11 million people out of the shadows. >> we have been too content for too long to allow individuals to

mow our lawn, serve our food, clean our homes, and even watch our children while not affording them any of the benefits that make our country so great. >> and here is why senators like john mccain understand the need for republicans to focus on immigration reform. >> elections. elections. the republican party is losing the support of our hispanic citizens. >> think about that. it's not about people in this country who are living a life, trying to be an american. it's about elections. john mccain has a very clear understanding of the republican demographic problem. >> i'll give you a little straight talk. look at the last election. look at the last election. we are losing dramatically the hispanic vote, which we think should be ours for a variety of reasons. and we've got to understand that. >> but if john mccain wants to understand why the republican party faces this problem, he might want to watch some of his own campaign ads back from 2010.

>> have we got the right plan? >> the plan is perfect. you bring troops, state, county, and local law enforcement together. >> and complete the dang fence. >> it will work this time. senator, you're one of us. >> i'm john mccain and i approve this message. >> well, politics does not exist in a vacuum. there are consequences to policies like self-deportation and killing the dream act to keep children of undocumented immigrants in the united states. senator dick durbin of illinois is intent on keeping a dream act component as part of the new legislation. >> the dream act is going to be an integral part of comprehensive immigration reform. the dream act will give to these young people the chance that they have been dreaming of, begging for, pleading to give an opportunity. >> i'm sure senator durbin is happy to have his colleagues on board this time around. but when the dream act was voted down in the senate in 2010, one of the no votes was this man,

who was up there on the stage today, senator john mccain. another no vote was senator lindsey graham, who is part of this group of eight, who is also a proponent of this new senate plan. these senators see how their votes and attitudes have damaged the republican party in the image business, but the voices of dissent are still out there. >> i don't know that there is any stopping this. it's up to me and fox news. and i don't think fox news is that invested in this. but there is not -- i don't think there is any republican opposition to this of any majority consequence or size. we'll have to wait and see and find out. >> well, rush doesn't have to run for election, does he? never underestimate the desire of conservative lawmakers to please the drugster. congressman lamar smith of texas has already attacked the senate plan with a dreaded "a" word, by granting amnesty. by granting amnesty, the senate proposal actually compounds the

problem by encouraging more illegal immigration. there is no reason for a holdup. it's time for millions of undocumented workers to stop living in fear, and it's time for republicans to stop living in fear of the most extreme elements of their own party. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, do you trust republicans on immigration reform? texas a for yes. text b for no. to 622639. our blog is there for a comment at ed.msnbc.com. we'll bring you the results later on in the program. joining me tonight is one of the senators who is part of the team to reform immigration in this country. senator robert menendez of new jersey, one of the senators involved in this proposal. senator, good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be with you, ed. >> i know that you spent a lot of time and effort on this, and i just to start with, with so much conversation i've had on the radio on this, you know, i think what these 11 million undocumented workers want is a

guarantee that if they come out of the shadows, that they're not going to be deported. a lot of them are living in fear. i think that this is not talked about enough. and this is really where they are as an individual, as a worker. they're saying okay, if i come out of the shadows, am i safe? can you answer that tonight, senator? >> well, the answer is unless they have a criminal record, yes, they would be safe. they would have a pending status during this process. they'd go through a criminal background check. of course, if there is a criminal background, we don't want them in this country. but the overwhelming number of these people by far are people who came here in pursuit of the american dream. and so they will have a pending status. they will be able to work during that period of time. they'll have to obviously pay back taxes if they have any due, and pay future taxes. they'll have to learn english, which we have never required for permanent residency. we have only required that for u.s. citizenship.

and they will have to continue to wait until those who are waiting under the existing law and have a visa pending to be reunified with their family in the united states, those come first. they would come later. but yes. that would be safe. >> senator, what about those employers who hire undocumented workers? i mean, how are we going to deal with this? and there are hundreds of thousands of businesses across america that employee 11 million undocumented workers. how are they going to come out of this legislation? >> well, clearly, one of the centerpieces of the principles is that we will go after employers who employee undocumented workers. we're going to have a more foolproof system of verification of a person's right to be employed in this country as part of this process. we're also going to look at how do we permit those who come here under the law to do certain jobs that maybe we cannot get in

america, because i'm ultimately for any american who wants to do any job first. but in the absence of being able to achieve that, then how do we have those people come here with labor protections as well. that's part of what we're going to work towards. >> there is a major focus on border security. i want to point out just last year, the united states spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement. border crossings are at a 40-year low there are over 21,000 border agents and six unmanned aircraft patrolling the border. why such a focus on border security when we've made so much of a commitment since 2005 to right now? >> well, there is no question under the obama administration more efforts have been done at the border than any other time. you just listed a whole host of them there are many more. the question is how do we use technology instead of personnel to achieve a greater border security, and how do we focus our existing resources to border crossings that are critical both for our commerce as well as our security?

>> are you confident that there is going to be enough republican support to get this thing done? it has failed in the past. we really haven't had anything in over several decades. we have gone from three million. now we're up to 11. i think there is more than 11 million undocumented workers. i think that's a low number. i could be wrong on that. i mean, are you going to have enough republicans to do this? because this is really been a strong conversation in progressive circles in america. the progressives and liberals are really pushing for this. >> well, ed, look, elections have consequences. and i think our republican colleagues woke up to the new demographic in this nation as expressed by the election results. as i traveled the country in this last election and in my own reelection, i said if we want to have immigration reform, use your vote to send that message. i think that was done. and so the american people in poll after poll support by significant majorities the type of reform we're talking about.

latino voters expect it. democrats want it, and republicans need it. >> senator robert menendez, i have to ask you one quick question here. on the vote for the sandy relief bill tonight, do you have a comment on that? >> yeah. >> it's been a long fight. is this really going to help people in relief? >> absolutely, ed. it's delayed 91 days. we should have never had to wait that long. this is the united states of america. it means we respond to our fellow americans in times of crisis and emergency and disaster. but relief is finally on the way. and now we're just going to make sure that after the president signs this bill, which i know he'll do in short order, that we get secretary donovan, who was named by the president to oversee this relief to make sure that money comes out to our citizens, to our homeowners, to our businesses, to our communities. >> are you -- a majority of republicans voted against it. your thoughts on that. >> you know, i said on the senate floor today that never in two decades have we offset

emergency disaster relief, and that i will judge my colleagues in any future set of circumstances by how they treated the northeast. >> okay. >> and so i'm going to remember the vote tally. >> senator menendez, good to have you with us tonight. thank you so much. >> good to be here. >> remember the question at the bottom of the screen. share your thoughts with us on twitter @edshow and on facebook. we always want to know what you think. coming up, president obama was swept into office on the become of the american labor worker. leo gerard on how comprehensive immigration reform could be a big political machine for 2014 and beyond. stay with us.

paul ryan tries to repackage old republican ideas. i'll ask congressman barney frank whether our center left country will buy the american rebranding effort. and president obama and secretary of state hillary clinton joint interview has fox news pushing some new conspiracy theories.

we'll have all the details later. don't forget you can listen to my radio show on sirius xm radio channel 127 monday through friday. we'll be talking about immigration and this proposal tomorrow noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts with us on facebook tonight and on twitter using #edshow.

welcome back to "the ed show." president obama's push for a comprehensive immigration reform might be just the shot in the arm organized labor needs. the bureau of labor statistics reports union membership among whites fell by 547,000 last year, but union memberships among latinos jumped by 156,000 in 2012.

11 million workers coming out of the shadows could change the face of labor and ignite a powerful political force, which helped put president obama in the white house twice. let's turn to leo gerard, president of the united steelworkers international organization. mr. gerard good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be here. >> is this an issue that is going to help the labor force in this country? if you have 11 million workers come out of the shadows -- and let's face it, well over in the 90% have got to be, they're not all felons is the point i'm making. how is this going to help the labor movement in this country? >> look, these are primarily good people that came to america in search of the american dream, in search of a better standard of living. if you go back to the days of when we were told about nafta, we were told nafta would solve the immigration issue from mexico, but in reality what it did is depress mexican wages, depress mexican opportunity.

and those people came here in search of a better life. so what we've been fighting, the labor movement has been fighting for proper immigration reform now for going on almost 20 years. and i think this is going to be a tremendous opportunity for people to come out of the shadows, to have a full life, to be able to stand up, you know. we've tried to organize it. i don't know if you've seen it. we organized car wash workers in the los angeles area. some of these car wash workers were undocumented immigrants, and sometimes at the end of the week the boss would tell them that they owed the boss money, because they used supplies. and we fought that fight, and those workers joined our union. now we're doing the same thing in wisconsin with palermo pizza. undocumented workers in palermo threatened to fire them all, and we've got an unfair labor practice case going forward. i think in many, many ways this is going to help people to get a better standard of living. it's going to give people an opportunity to speak out and stand up and be part of the real american dream, to be a part of american democracy. >> why do you think conservatives over the years have used the word amnesty, but have been against any kind of reform?

it's always something that comes up. is it because you think it would help the democratic process or democratic organizations in this country? >> i think we've got republicans in particular and extreme conservatives. not all republicans. i shouldn't say that but you have extreme republicans and many republicans who are opposed to giving these people a path to citizenship because to be blunt, as it was said on numerous occasions, employers like having this army of unsecured -- i mean undocumented workers so that they would have a cheap labor force. >> sure. >> be able to move them around and threaten them. clearly, when you look at the way republicans have treated undocumented immigrants from wherever they're from, they've been pushed to the democratic party. and it's not an accident that so quickly after president obama got inaugurated, that so quickly after he got inaugurated they wanted to solve this problem. it hasn't had much change. we want to see what comes out of the house of representatives where the most extreme are still there. >> well, senator john mccain made it very clear that it's about elections. >> yeah.

>> it's not about caring for workers, it's not about caring for families, it's about elections. so it's a demographic wake-up call is what we're seeing that is bringing them to reform would. you agree? >> yes. ed, you asked the most important question a while ago when i was listening. the most important question is if they come out and register, what will their rights be while they're registered. are they going to be able to be threatened again by employers? are they going to be able to work? are they going to be able to vote? are they going to be able to stand up for their rights? >> that's the whole key. >> that's the whole reason. >> that is the whole key to this entire issue. >> that's right. >> you tell somebody hey, we're going to reform. they come it of the shadows, and all of the sudden they didn't read the fine print. >> exactly. >> there has to be assurances to these workers in this country that there is not going to be any kind of retaliation whatsoever, that they're going to be able to be part of the american dream and change. that's what i think. >> exactly. i think you're perfectly right on that. and that's one of the things the labor movement has to push for this. is just the outline now that has come through the senate.

it hasn't made its way to the house. it hasn't made its way to any details. look, when i hear them say they're going to have to pay a fine and pay back taxes, most of these workers -- >> they don't have it. >> they don't have the money saved. >> they don't have the money to pay fines. i don't know why they don't have some kind of a voucher system where a worker who is an american citizen can stand up for someone they know who has been living in the shadows, say i know this person, he is a good worker, and go right on to speed up the process. we could end up having a major democratic red tape grow out of all of this. >> ed, we need a path to citizenship that isn't going to take two and three decades. and let me make one other point. the hb-1 visas. you hear these people talking about well, we have to bring in these technical workers, we have to bring in tech engineers, we have to bring this. the reason they want to do that is they're not prepared to pay people the going salary. they'll say nobody wants the job. you're not going to be an

engineer working in high-tech for 10 bucks an hour. we have to take on the issues. workers have to have a right to join a union, have a right to collective bargaining. my last point, there is not a ceo in america that doesn't have a contract with his board of directors. if the ceo is entitled to a contract, why aren't the workers? >> leo gerard, good to have you with us tonight. a lot to unpack when it comes to immigration reform in this country. paul ryan backs away from a government shutdown because he knows americans don't want it. but he hasn't given up on harsh spending cuts. former congressman barney frank joins me. and there is breaking news on the republican plan to rig the electoral system. another republican governor is now backing off his party's plan to steal the vote. details coming up. stay with us.

and welcome back to "the ed show." in center left america tonight, former vice presidential candidate paul ryan is back on the job in congress, trying to repackage the same old republican ideas. here is budget chairman ryan talking about the huge cuts coming down the pike. >> i think the sequester is going to happen because that $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, we can't lose those spending cuts. that was to pay for the last debt ceiling increase, let alone any future increases. we're not interested in shutting government down. what happens on march 1, spending goes down automatically. march 27th is when the moment you're talking about, the continuing resolution expires. we are more than happy to keep spending at those levels going on into the future while we debate how to balance the budget, how to grow the economy,

how to create economic opportunity. >> all right. now let's put this in context and think about what congressman ryan from wisconsin is really saying. republicans backed off their debt limit threat because they knew it was a political loser. and now they seem to be backing off their threat to shut down the government. sequester? well, that's another matter. if congress does nothing, the cuts take effect. republicans don't want defense cuts, but they might be willing to stomach those cuts because domestic programs would also get slashed, including medicare. and that's what republicans really want. let's turn to barney frank, former massachusetts congressman, with us tonight here on "the ed show." congressman, good to have you with us. >> thank you, ed. >> you bet. republicans are trying to change their image here. is it going to work? your thoughts on what you just heard. >> no, because they're not going to be allowed simply to do the thing paul ryan did. he talked about entitlement. people should understand when he talks about cutting entitlements, entitlements is republican for social security

and medicare. the two most successful anti-poverty programs in american history, two great accomplishments which substantially reduce poverty among older people and created the possibility for most americans of a comfortable, not a wealthy, not an affluent, but a reasonably comfortable retirement. the other flaw is when ryan says, well, these cuts are to pay for the debt limit. he acts as if he is doing me a favor, or president obama a favor by raising the debt limit. i voted against the war in iraq. so did president obama. if we had not gone to war in iraq, if we had not followed that foolish mistaken and unfortunately damaging policy, we'd have a trillion dollars less. we would be that much under the debt limit. plus, the debt ceiling simply says we're not going to pay our bills. it just is illogical to say that's to pay for that. that's like going out and incurring costs which all of us did, republicans and democrats together, and then saying oh,

and by the way, i'm not going to pay my bill unless you do me this enormous favor. but the other point i would make is this. he talks about, we need tax reform. the biggest single abuse in the tax code today, and it's a tough contest, is the one that says the richest people in america who run hedge funds can treat their earned income as if it were a capital gain. they call it carried interest. >> yeah. >> it means the rest of us are carrying them. and we voted to reduce that. and paul ryan boxed it. he is against that. and if you remember from that interview, he did not give a single specific about a tax break he wants to end, and he talked about cutting entitlements. >> he is up front saying no more revenue. i mean, that's their position on that. now, they've backed off the debt limit. now they're backing off a government shutdown. can problem get them to back off sequester as well? or do you believe what he says they really want that? i think he could. here is the i think important

point. the business community in america, particularly the financial community, to my great disappointment, they were many of them supportive of president obama in 2008. he was rationale and helped get the country out of the terrible crisis they engendered. we had a bipartisan cooperation with the bush administration to do that, weight-2009. then because we passed a consumer reform bill, they overwhelmingly supported the republicans. i've said to some of them you are supporting people who are following policies you know are illogical. so what happened, and i think this happened on the debt limit, i think the financial backers said to them, guys, you're going too far. and they're under great pressure from the people who have overwhelmingly financed them. >> yeah. >> to be a little bit more logical. so i do think, yes, there is a chance to avoid the sequester. by the way, i believe that the level of cuts we're talking about in the military are sustainable. they need to be phased in, and

they need to be sensible. you don't cut across the board you. cut american military bases in western europe which we no longer need. you cut a nuclear stockpile since i don't think we're going to fight an all-out war with the soviet union. >> do you think the democrats are going to try to go deeply in defense cuts? quickly on that one. i have one more question. >> i think the logic is overwhelming we will do that because you can find ways to cut that don't hurt our economy and save us money that we need to use elsewhere. >> and congressman frank, deval patrick expected today, a temporary successor to john kerry's, his senate seat. where are you on that? it's no question that he is going to get confirmed. and have you had any further contact or conversation -- >> no, i want to respect the governor's prerogative on this. i had not previously been interested to it. i was frankly ready to make some money here doing things, making speeches and writing a book. and then i saw the important decision coming up. so i expressed my interest in

doing it. i was a little surprised some people told me it was considered inappropriate to ask this. i wasn't asking to be invited to dinner. but it's the governor's decision. he has tough decisions to make. i have a great deal of confidence in him. and i have said to people this is not a matter in which he should be pressured. i made myself clear. i think in defense of the governor and in support of him, he should not have been doing anything as he hasn't until the senate confirms john kerry. john is entitled to the full support of those who admire him. and the governor appropriately has not done anything or sent any signal that would have had the senator say oh, you're taking us for granted. >> barney frank, great to have you with us on "the ed show" tonight. thanks for being with us there. is a lot more up in next half hour. >> being a blue state is not a permanent diagnosis. >> the plan that was too radical for virginia has piqued scott walker's interest in wisconsin. >> it's an interesting ideas. >> next, reverend jesse jackson on the ongoing republican effort

to steal the vote. the president gears up for super bowl sunday, but questions the violence of the game. and back up the right wing whambulance. barack obama and hillary clinton have the righties in tears. >> how did she hit her head and get a concussion? >> there was no follow-up. >> did she pass out and hit her head? was she pushed? >> jonathan alter breaks down the big interview ahead. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien.

allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

yeah, i'm looking to save, but i'm not sure which policy is right for me. you should try our coverage checker. it helps you see if you have too much coverage or not enough, making it easier to get what you need. [ beeping ] these are great! [ beeping ] how are you, um, how are you doing? i'm going to keep looking over here. probably a good idea. ken: what's a good idea? nothing. with coverage checker, it's easy to find your perfect policy. visit progressive.com today.

thanks for staying with us tonight. a handful of states are considering laws to redraw districts and exclude voters so they can help republicans win the white house in 2016. here is the scary part. scott walker and four other governors may be the only people who can stop this election rigging. and that's exactly what it is. president obama won the electoral votes in michigan, florida, ohio, and pennsylvania, virginia, along with wisconsin. now republicans in all five

states are pushing to change the way they allocate electoral votes. the good news is powerful republicans in florida and virginia say that they won't change the electoral vote system. governor of virginia bob mcdonnell says he is against the change as well. but his buddy scott walker was on the fence. >> well, it's an interesting idea. i haven't committed one way or the other to it. i think we have to be very careful in changes like that. but it's worth looking at. i haven't made a commitment one way or another. >> all this needs is a little publicity, because tonight walker has backed off the statements. he tells "the journal sentinel" that he has a real concern about changing the way wisconsin awards electoral votes. but a pair of lobbyists could be sending money to wisconsin anyway. they won't admit the changes would disenfranchise black and latino voters. one lobbyist claims it has nothing to do with race. it's not a race issue. it's about a machine. another lobbyist blamed black organizers for the long lines in ohio.

>> the reality is that we've had long lines due to the success of groups that turn out high numbers of voters. >> the republicans can't figure out how to win black and latino voters so they find ways to suppress them instead. colin powell talked about it last week. >> should we really have gone after reducing the turnout of voters in those places where we thought it would make a difference? the republican party should be a party that says we want everybody to vote, and make it easier for people to vote. >> so far republicans may be blocking more votes than they're winning. i'm joined tonight by reverend jesse jackson, president of the rainbow-push coalition. reverend, good to have you with us tonight. >> jefferson davis democrats were doing their thing as republican conservatives to deny access to voting. >> well, what do you say to mr. blackwell that says african-american organizers caused those long lines? >> well, i was in ohio during that period. we had wet people and dry machines. we had machines locked up in the warehouse dry.

people stood in the rain seven hours that day to vote. so you cannot blame people for doing what they ought to do, vote. you can blame those that held the machines back for holding the machines back. >> would changing the electoral college votes hurt african-american and latino voters? >> ultimately it would hurt everybody, we're so inextricably bound. those who once sought to deny the right to vote now seek to suppress the right to vote. they tried all kinds of maneuvers in 2011 and '12 from trying to stop early voting, from trying to demand there be a birth certificate. and florida and pennsylvania and ohio and colorado in particular are a part of the bigger scheme. but voter suppression, i'm convinced people who would not vote ordinarily did vote because they were afraid. >> since it's gotten some publicity in the last few weeks, state legislators can do this if they go through the process. but it doesn't seem fair to

people at all. and the one vote, one person obviously is violated. so what is the defense mechanism that can be put in place here? >> well, it's beyond that, ed. there is a supreme court case to be heard now. they want to pull the plug on section 5 enforcement mechanism. they want to argue that why quote/unquote the south, the voting act does not apply to the south. it's based upon need to protect people. when you look at the voting patterns of 2012, it's evidence obviously people in voting patterns that threaten to ease access to voting. and race is a major factor in that conclusion. >> i need to emphasize that. many people say it's not race. and some lobbyists obviously greasing the skids it's not about race. you say it is. >> white women couldn't serve on juries until '67. 18-year-olds in vietnam could not vote. and you couldn't vote multilingual.

in many ways, the number majority is affected by the attempt, by the scheme. >> reverend, you're in town tonight for the wall street project. tell us about this economic summit. >> well, in part, i'm convinced that beyond this argument by fiscal cliff and the issue that is there about debt limit is how are we going rebuild america. there are billions of trillion of billions of pension fund money. some sort of infrastructure development bank that maybe if you cut a deal, they bring back some of the money for the purpose of reinvesting in such a bank, you can rebuild. because the banks that destroyed and manipulated, they're not going to -- they're not going to green line the red line zones. president clinton will speak to us on this coming thursday. >> so a special bank, a special fund that would be dedicated to infrastructure and jobs? >> and based upon target, maybe appalachian, maybe in the city.

what is marshall plan except 50-year loans at 2% government secured. it was a plan to invest in, quote/unquote risk areas. the major banks that engaged in predatory lending and subprime lending, they're not going to do that. but we have the capacity and infrastructure development banks to serve the purpose of green lining the red zones of that country. >> okay, reverend jesse jackson, thanks for joining us tonight on "the ed show." appreciate your time. president obama is a lifetime chicago bears fan, but it's not stopping him from speaking out about the dangers associated with playing football. we'll bring you the latest. stay with us.

we always love hearing from our viewers on our facebook and twitter, activities that are out there. many of you are responding to the picture we posted of president obama running along the colonnade of the white house with children of new chief of staff denis mcdonough. on facebook, melanie says this is why we love barack. he is one of us. he doesn't let his job interfere

with being just a regular guy. >> he's so cute and still a kid at heart, go, barack. and diane says it's great to see a president who loves kids, and they enjoy him as well. you can go to our facebook page right now, and you can join the conversation. and don't forget to like the "ed show." still to come, fox news freaks after president obama and hillary clinton do a big interview. the latest conspiracies from the right wing. stay with us.

well, super bowl xlvii only six days away. president obama speaking out on the dangers of long-term head injuries associated with football. it's important to point out that the president is a life-long chicago bears fan and loves watching the game. but in a recent interview with "the new republic," the president expressed concern for players, saying, "if i had a son, i would have to think long and hard before i let him play football.

and i think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence." president obama also said nfl players have protections in place like their players union and high salaries, but he is worried that college football players are at risk, saying, you know, you read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of the same problems with concussions and so forth, and then they have nothing to fall back on. that's something that i would like to see the ncaa think about. it's a very serious issue. we reported about it here on "the ed show." there is a direct link between playing football and dangerous brain diseases like cte. in case you didn't think it's on the minds of the players, here is what ravens safety bernard pollard had to say. "the only thing that i'm waiting for, and i hope it doesn't happen, is a guy dying on the field. we've had everything else happen there except for a death. we understand what we signed up for, and it sucks."

and an estimated 100 million americans are getting ready to watch the super bowl this sunday. everyone loves to see the big plays with the big hits. and it's turning out as long as it's not our kid out there on the field. tonight in our survey, i asked you do you trust republicans on immigration reform? 4% of you said yes. 96% of you say no. coming up, the president and secretary of state hillary clinton sat down for a rare joint interview, and fox news, well, they didn't like it a bit. jonathan alter weighs in on it next. stay with us.

and in the big finish tonight, president obama and outgoing secretary of state hillary clinton sat down for a rare joint interview with steve kroft of "60 minutes" this weekend. the two discussed their past rivalry, their current working relationship and american foreign policy. it was a public sign of solidarity between the two former rivals. yet that proved to be too much for the folks over at fox news. the "fox & friends" trio complained about the lack of real news, and attacked crawford for not digging deeper into clinton's health issues. >> the interview was awkward. they were giddy saying goodbye. and right at the top, steve kroft said they only gave us 30 minutes, which of course means there is not going to be any real news. and there wasn't. >> but if you give somebody 30 minutes, you could get real into it, especially steve kroft, who is usually awesome. but i think for some reason they didn't dig into anything at all. >> 30 minutes? come on. >> i would like to know, did she

pass out and hit her head? was she pushed? how did she hit her head and get a concussion? >> and the whining didn't stop there. the network that served as the bush administration's head cheerleader is now taking issue with the questions asked of president obama and secretary clinton? >> i mean, didn't you expect one series of tough questions? >> especially so in the case of "60 minutes." >> i mean, it really was something you would expect from the state-run media. it was that kind of level of propaganda. >> i got to tell you, i was waiting for it in anticipation. and here is what i got. i got a softball. i got a whiffle ball, a nerf ball, an air ball. >> it's like a soft boiled egg. >> kroft challenged the president and secretary of state on the administration's brand of foreign policy. >> the biggest criticism of this team and the u.s. foreign policy from your political opposition has been what they say, an abdication of the united states on the world stage.

>> somalia or gadhafi probably doesn't agree with that assessment, for he wasn't around he probably would not agree with that assessment. obviously we helped put together and lay the groundwork for liberating libya. when it comes to egypt, i think had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there. but also, understanding that we do nobody a service when we leap before we look. >> joining me now, msnbc political analyst, bloomberg view columnist, jonathan alter. great to have you with us. thank you, jonathan. a rare interview, a rare occasion needs special assessment. what do you think of what you just heard? >> i mean, i thought it was good interview. could he have had a couple more zingers? sure. but it's really hard when it's a, two-on-one, which it was in this case, and b, when you're interviewing a president, i

didn't see the fox guys cross-examining, prosecuting george w. bush when he was president. these interviews are always going to be fairly polite. and in this case, i think it was quite skillful in a couple of regards. he had to ask about 2016. that's kind of a hackneyed question and the president said you're incorrigible, steve. but he did it in kind of a clever way by saying is there a time limit on your endorsement of secretary clinton in terms of 2016. and there were a couple of other things that he did in terms of getting in important questions in ways that were not too confrontational. easy for those guys to say it's a whiffle ball interview. i don't think any of them have ever done it. and i thought it was hilarious that on "fox & friends" they raise the question of was she pushed? this is vince foster was killed stuff. was she pushed. that's the ultimate idiotic conspiracy theory that somebody

was trying to do in the secretary of state. >> why do you think the president did it? why do you think he did it? >> oh, he did it for pretty obvious reasons. >> she is pretty popular. that can't hurt. >> he wanted to make it clear as she is leaving office that they really were a team, that they were on the same page, and to thank her, as he said, because kroft actually asked her, you know, why are you doing this interview? which normally we don't do. i think it was a good question in terms of advancing transparency that he asked it. the president wanted to really make it clear how much he valued her. and it did show a certain gratitude that he has been accused of lacking in the past. >> let's talk about 2016. does this put him in a box that maybe he couldn't come out and support joe biden? >> well, joe biden is not going to run if hillary runs. so it doesn't put him in any kind of a box. >> if hillary clinton runs, joe biden will not run?

>> right now, things can always change in politics, but right now, she is in such a commanding position that if she decides that she wants to run, it would be a coronation. i think she would only have token opposition. so you're not going to see that biden/clinton race that everybody in the press wants to see. >> is it just in the culture of the media that they were looking for something? they just couldn't accept the fact that these two were big rivals in 2008, there was pretty tough stuff said back and forth and they come back to work together for the good of the country? is this just an example that fox news can't stomach? >> we're always all of us, not just fox, we want news. but if news makers are determined to not make news, which it's clear they were, they were doing this for a particular purpose, the president to show gratitude, the secretary of state to have an exit kind of interview where she mentioned some of their achievements, it was nothing any reporter could have done, especially a fox reporter if they had been there, to get them to make news.